“[Jerry] Brown said he has a ‘hunch’ the courts would ‘modify’ the so-called California rule, which holds that benefits promised to public employees can’t be rolled back. The state’s Supreme Court is set to hear a case in which lower courts ruled that reductions to pensions are permissible if the payments remain ‘reasonable’ for workers.”

As I was pondering that, I got next week’s council agenda from the clerk – I’m on the clerk’s notice list, which is just a matter of e-mailing debbie.presson@chicoca.gov and giving her your e-mail address. You can ask for notifications of any and all committee meetings too, stay on top of this stuff instead of bitching about it 10 years after.

Oh look – Reanette Fillmer is still advancing her discussion about city of Chico pensions! She asked council, months ago, to agendize a discussion of our employer [taxpayer] -paid benefits and how they compare to other cities in California.

I’m not sure how helpful that would be, knowing that most of California is in trouble over pensions right now, but it’s damn sure interesting – see here:

I have never seen this information before, I’ve only heard bits and snatches at meetings – the rest of my knowledge is based on “facts not in evidence” – making guesses from other stuff I hear and watching the expressions on their faces. The last figures I saw showed the city of Chico paying about 26 percent of the pensions – now look! 46 percent! To the employees’ same old 12 percent or less.

That is how we got into this mess, and so far, the city of Chico is just digging us deeper into it.

I don’t know what Fillmer’s agenda is, but we all need to pay attention right now. The last thing we want is for “pension reform” to turn into “leave the taxpayers holding the bag,” which is what the unions want.

And let council members know how you feel

sean.morgan@chicoca.gov

reanette.fillmer@chicoca.gov

mark.sorensen@chicoca.gov

ann.schwab@chicoca.gov

andrew.coolidge@chicoca.gov

karl.ory@chicoca.gov

randall.stone@chicoca.gov

While you’re at it, send them a couple of pictures of the street in front of your house.

I’ve been trying to follow the trash tax conversation since 2012. At some point it went underground, and every time I’d ask Mark Orme for an update he’d tell me it wasn’t ready for the public yet. He kept giving me dates that it would be “rolled out,” but those dates came and went as the city wrestled with the haulers over the deal.

Ever watch “Repo Man”, with Emilio Estevez and Harry Dean Stanton? Then you know what the “repo man grab” is. This deal was a fight between two big dogs that both wanted to eat the ratepayers, they were just squaring off over who got what.

They only started talking public about this deal a couple of months ago, and the revised ordinance they approved Tuesday night was available to the public, on the city website, for less than a week. I got it from the clerk Friday, because I’m signed up to get the agendas. For some reason she had trouble getting it out – she usually has these in my mailbox on the Wednesday before the following Tuesday council meeting.

When I read it, the things that stuck out to me the most are the requirement that we have and pay for a yard waste bin –

after 5 years of drought many people have taken out lawns and big trees have died. The only thing you can put in those bins are leaves and grass clippings.

this is not free, it’s a requirement, and therefore should be subsidized for low-income households. I’ve been telling Orme that since 2012, but he would never respond

this means another truck stopping in front of my house – they said they would reduce trucks – liars!

The other item that bothers me is that trash service is not required. That means, the burden of increased costs will fall on those of us who do the right thing and get trash service. It shoves out the lower-income households who can’t afford it – great!

I wrote to the entire council one last time to try and get them to consider these points, forwarding them the conversation I’d had with Waste Management staffer Ryan West.

Hello Council,

I am forwarding questions I had asked of Waste Management representative Ryan West regarding the most recent revision of the trash tax deal, before you tomorrow night. The only item he did not answer satisfactorily for me was regarding mandatory yard waste pick-up. I understood yard waste would be optional, but Mr. West tells me it will be required. Wow – trash service is not required, but if we get trash service, we are required to pay for yard waste service. As I explained to West below, I don’t need yard waste service, why should I pay for it?

One more thing I’d like to bring up with you folks is, if service is not mandatory, this will raise the rate for those of us who opt in. If service is mandatory, I believe the city must offer a subsidy program for low-income residents. This needed to be discussed publicly and still should.

The whole thing needed more public discussion. I’ve been trying to follow this for about four years now, and the deal you have here is not what was talked about at the meetings I attended. Also, these meetings were poorly noticed, at times when the general public would not be able to attend. I think this whole thing was run under the radar because you know people would see – it’s a tax. Right Mark? And I quote, “Let’s call this what it is, a trash tax.”

By any other name, this deal still stinks.

Juanita Sumner

Of course I got no response. The next night they approved the deal without discussing either point. I was frustrated, so I wrote a second note, but this time I only included Mayor Sean Morgan and Vice Mayor Reanette Fillmer.

Notice

I will not pay for yard waste service I don’t need. If you move forward with this deal, you are depriving me of affordable service, and I think that’s going to come back at you later.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

I do think they are breaking the law, but we’ll see what happens. Meanwhile, I got a surprising response from Vice Mayor Fillmer.

How come the others that voted for it are not on your email? Are you discriminating?

That’s it, that’s her whole response. As if she didn’t get my earlier e-mail. What is this, seventh grade? This woman is not only our vice mayor, she’s worked in the public trough for years, and runs her own “human resources” agency. I’d like to have an explanation for the yard waste requirement, but I get “are you talking to me!?!”

I responded:

Ms. Fillmer,

When I wrote to the entire council on this subject earlier this week I got no response, so this time I just sent to the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Yes, I think you’re right – by definition, that is “discriminating – having or showing refined taste or good judgment.”

I have tried to follow this garbage tax conversation since 2012, attending various meetings. When the subject stopped coming up at meetings and I asked Mark Orme for further information, he repeatedly told me they weren’t ready to show the deal to the public (I still have the e-mails he sent). The deal was not shown to the public until recently, and this most updated version was available to the public for less than a week before council approved it.

The yard waste requirement only came up recently. Why? After 5 years of drought, people all over town have taken out lawns, trees and shrubs have died. I have a large property but my needs are suited by a small compost pile. As a landlord I am constantly pruning trees – tree branches are not allowed in the yard waste bin. The rules for yard waste bins allow only leaves, grass clippings and small plant waste – why are we required to pay more for a service we don’t need when I am forced to make regular trips and pay to take my yard waste to the compost facility on Cohasset? This was never discussed in front of me, it never turned up in meeting minutes, and it really just looks like a bone you are throwing to Waste Management so they can jack up our rates.

Please explain to me any other good reasoning you might have behind this requirement. And maybe you should ask Mr. Orme or Mr. Ewing if required yard waste service will have to carry a low-income subsidy from the city.

Fillmer is also trying to tinker with the city’s pension system – she’s trying to make new employees pay more but old, or “classic” employees will not pay. Mark Orme and Debbie Presson just got raises to cover their new pension shares. Orme’s salary was already over $200,000/year, and Presson’s raise takes her to $142,000/year, but they pay less than 10 percent of their own pension.

Yesterday, having reported an illegal camp in Middle Bidwell Park to city of Chico officials, my husband and I walked over to the site to find that the campers seemed to be gone but had left mounds of trash behind. In fact, we encountered more trash yesterday than we’d seen the day before.

These pictures were taken yesterday morning.

Here’s the pile we encountered Thursday December 29, still there – notice the dismantled bikes. Somebody had added – a real estate sign? – to the pile.

We noticed new piles, clothes, trash bags, kipple of all kinds.

I wonder if they steal from each other, and here’s somebody’s stuff that has been rifled and left.

This is located about a block or two from my home, my tenant’s home. We’ve always locked everything up – Chico was never that nice of a town that you could leave your valuables unlocked, that’s been known for some time.

But lately we’ve been hearing about weird stuff, stuff that goes beyond home security. One guy was caught stealing a woman’s panties off her back yard clothesline, in broad daylight. Her husband caught him in the garage, having broken in through a back door to steal a bike.

A man on the website Nextdoor reported someone had torn the door off a storage shed in his side yard, but said there was nothing of value, so nothing was taken. Lucky him! I had been bothering my husband to buy one of those metal sheds at Home Depot for our tenant’s bikes, so she wouldn’t have to keep them in her laundry room. He laughed and told me, “that’s like telling the transients, ‘look, here’s some stuff for you…'” He’s right, these people can just rip the door off a shed, hidden in your back yard, you and all your neighbors gone off to work.

As I’ve said, Chico is not a nice little town anymore. How do we fight this? Report it, report it, report it. Demand action. I’ll e-mail city manager Mark Orme and ask him who is responsible for cleaning up this mess and when that will be done. I’ll cc both news editors as well as my third district supervisor Maureen Kirk. I may cc the entire council, but Reanette Fillmer is the one who has shown the most interest in this issue.

Please join me in reporting illegal campers. Follow up – if you still see the problem the next day, politely ask what has been done or why nothing has been done. Don’t be intimidated by their polite refusal to do anything – send your e-mail conversation here, and I’ll print it verbatim.

So for your information we did further research and a Ann Schwab has recused herself 114 times since she started in office. What are your thoughts?

Sheesh, you’d think Fillmer was up for re-election, but her term isn’t up until 2018. Getting a few cheap shots in early, huh Reanette?

I’m not crazy about Schwab, but something I’ve learned since she’s been in office – she’s always been the top vote getter, miles ahead of the third and fourth seats, and until Sean Morgan came along, way ahead of the second seat. Does Fillmer actually think she has a chance to unseat Schwab? Does she think she’s helping her chum Morgan? And what about the 12 – 14 thousand people who vote for Ann every four years?

It seems petty and bitchy, if you ask me. I mean, I’m a bitch, so I can say that. But see, I don’t hold a public seat, I haven’t been given a public sector job (or a very nice benefits package) like Fillmer has got, or been voted into a seat of public trust. So I can mean mouth all I want.

Fillmer needs to be more professional and less divisive. The divisiveness on council has got to stop – these idiots are fiddling while our park, our streets, our water quality, and public safety are going down the toilet. All we need right now is more trash mouth from Reanette Fillmer.

Fillmer is a badge bunny, wants to give the key to the city to Chico PD. I get the feeling Schwab has voted against that current, and the cops want her out.

Reanette, put your blouse back on and try to act like you have some respect for your constituents. If you want to campaign for Sean Morgan, sure that’s great. You can tell people you’re not voting for Schwab, and why, I don’t care. Sure, sign whatever arguments for or against whatever measure you want. But this isn’t junior high school, it’s not the cool kids vs the nerds anymore. Try to act like a grown up.

And, let me take one more shot – Fillmer should probably recuse herself from contract talks with Chico PD, she way too embedded with the cops.

Voter turnout was in the dirt last week, look at the numbers. In 2012 we had eleven candidates for four city council seats – the top vote getter got over 15,000 votes. Last week we only had seven candidates running for three positions, Andrew Coolidge winning with just over 11,000. I wonder if he’s asking himself this morning – what happened to 50 people who voted for him in 2012 but didn’t vote for him last week?

Almost 1,000 people left the city council portion of their ballot blank, while almost 4,000 “undervoted,” choosing less than the three requested.

Here, compare with Election 2010 – Sorensen got roughly 3,000 more votes in that race, and there were two more candidates running in that race.

Voter turnout was definitely down folks, and we have to wonder why. I blame the choices – look how many people only voted for two, when both parties ran a slate. Meaning, they voted for part of a slate, but couldn’t stomach the whole team? This does not bode well – our council and our town are divided, but not evenly. The conservatives have the power, and they are backing the police department, because the police department put up the money to get them in there. When the cop contracts come up later in December we will take more steps down the Road to Perdition. In 2016 a frenzied council will place a tax measure on the ballot, let’s see what they decide to flop out.

Over the last few years, the police department under Kirk Trostle has proposed various ordinances that would result in fees being paid directly to the police department. He’s succeeded in getting a “social host” ordinance that includes a “service” fee for police being called to unruly parties, with provisions for charging a landlord if they can prove landlord knew about the party(ies). Trostle also tried to foist a local “alcohol tax” but was told by the city attorney that this was illegal under California law. But he has succeeded in putting police department fees in the new alcohol licensing process, staffer Mark Wolfe saying this might add $5-6,000 to the average license application.

Trostle said he’d used his “alcohol tax” to do compliance checks or “stings” on local liquor vendors and also to train liquor business employees to deal with underage and drunken customers. I responded that this is the ABC’s job, and Trostle made some ridiculous remarks, saying the ABC doesn’t do anything. Even Mark Sorensen agreed with me, they were asking to duplicate the ABC’s duties. But, I notice, the whole conversation continued and now Trostle has convinced the city to make him a direct part of the alcohol licensing process and let him skim a new fee off the top. This fee will go toward the bloated salaries and benefits in the police department, so Orme and Constantin have decided to throw it out like a piece of meat at advancing wolves. Those guys would throw the bride out of the sleigh in a New York minute.

And then last week I saw this piece in the ER – The ABC is doing stings in town, “along with the Chico Police Department.” A program funded by the ABC, in full, after Trostle told me the ABC doesn’t do anything. In fact, I had e-mailed the ABC after Trostle made the remark, got an immediate response, saying the exact opposite. I also thought the officer who responded seemed a little taken back by the remark. And now we see the truth – Chico PD just conducted a successful sting operation, busting three of five businesses checked, with money from the ABC. According to Mike O’Brien, “This will be the first of many as part of this grant”

According to the Enterprise Record, “It’s been at least a couple of years since a similar operation was conducted in Chico, O’Brien said. The Chico police Target Team use to do them when it was staffed.”

Chico PD is only three members short of being “fully staffed.” As you know, these people take salaries of $65,000 to $120,000 a year, now with mandatory overtime, but they don’t have time to do compliance checks on liquor stores? Give me a break. These guys are money hungry pigs who won’t do their fucking job unless they get extra pay for it. “When a majority of businesses are selling to minors, especially because Chico has a high student population, it’s worrying, [O’Brien]said.” Even though they are fully aware we have an alcohol problem in this town, they hold out for more money before they’ll do their sworn duty.

The contracts are up right now, please write letters to your council members and to the paper – we need to dump the provision that the city collects their union dues that get turned right back into city elections. Here’s Fillmer’s latest flier – how did she pay for this?

The cops endorse her because she’s going to sign that proposal they just put up, including 5 percent raises. But you’ll notice she wouldn’t let the CPOA put their name on it because Michael Jones has been giving her a bad time about taking money specifically from CPOA.

But she’ll take the fire department union’s endorsement (and money?) because Michael Jones only asked her about the cops?

I don’t know who’s paying for all this because Debbie Presson refuses to put the campaign reports on the website. She says we need to come down to her office and look at them. Wow, you know what Debbie, you should be careful what you ask for.

CHICO >> Three businesses are facing potential consequences after clerks at each location reportedly sold alcohol to minors during a decoy operation by agents of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control along with the Chico Police Department.

Authorities made compliance checks at five Chico locations, but only three sold to the minor decoys, he said. It was a short operation, but to have that many indicates that there’s a problem.

People who sold alcohol to minors face a minimum fine of $250 and or 24 to 36 hours of community service for the first violation.

ABC will also look into taking further action against the three businesses where alcohol was sold, O’Brien said.

The penalties may include a fine, a suspension or the permanent revocation of their alcohol license.

Authorities also conducted a decoy shoulder tap operation, which requires a minor to stand outside a liquor or convenience store and ask people to buy them alcohol, according to police. The minor must indicate he or she is under 21 years old and cannot buy alcohol. If the adult buys alcohol for the minor, the buyer is arrested and cited.

The penalty for furnishing alcohol to a minor is a minimum $1,000 fine and 24 hours of community service, according to the press release.

O’Brien said only one person was cited, but he did no immediately know how many people had been approached.

It’s been at least a couple of years since a similar operation was conducted in Chico, O’Brien said. The Chico police Target Team use to do them when it was staffed.

Chico police currently has an ABC grant that allows for the operations and Tuesday’s event was just a test run to see what the compliance check would yield, O’Brien said.

When a majority of businesses are selling to minors, especially because Chico has a high student population, it’s worrying, he said.

This is a very unpleasant election, not as fun as usual – there aren’t any good candidates. City Council is an avalanche of crap. Look at our choices here – I already discussed why I’m not voting for Gruendl, now I’ll tell you why I’m not voting for ANY of them.

Mark Sorensen says it’s too hard to cut the salaries and perks because he gets the same package as city manager of Biggs. He won’t rock the CalPERS boat. Did you see his campaign flier?

I know, the same picture he’s used for the past two or three elections, Mark and The Super Vixens.

What I see in this picture is five people on the public dole – we pay for a $21,000+ package for Mark Sorensen and his tribe there. He also gets a package from city of Biggs. Our contracts are written so that if an employee gets another package from another job, they can choose a package from the city and then accept a cash payout instead of the insurance policy. What do you think Sorensen does – does he take two policies at the public expense or does he take the better policy and then take cash for the lesser?

What I don’t see in this picture is the grandkid he was bragging about a couple of years back, or any son-in-law to go along with said grandkid, so I’m guessing grandkid is also on the public dole.

No, this man will never take any kind of stand against public overcompensation, he’s never going to go after the conflict of interest in the cop and fire contracts (the city collects their unions dues, even from employees who don’t want to be in the union, and they use the money for elections). An endorsement for this man is an endorsement for bankruptcy and a life in chains for the private sector worker.

And then there’s little Reanette Fillmer – when Michael Jones asked her if she will get a public pension for her work in Tehama County, she said she didn’t know. How cute – playing dumb? She works as a human resources consultant for a law group that works out of CalPERS, doing CalPERS bidding in public entities all over the state. Now she’s here to make sure we pay our pension premiums so CalPERS doesn’t go bust and take all those phat pensions with it.

I’ll just lump Forough Molina and Lupe Arim-Law along with Gruendl because they won’t say anything that Gruendl and the Democrats haven’t pre-approved. In fact, in our conversation about the PG&E rate increase, Molina came off as an idiot.

I am interested in this discussion. I am one of those people who keeps my bills forever and fume over the changing charges. I remember in college physics, my prof told us that a group of Yale students could not figure out how the heck PG&E charged customers. Not sure if that was true, or just getting us fired up to solve some problems, but it sounded right to me. It’s pretty crazy, really, that people don’t seem to notice these increases. I guess on a single income, I do notice.

I work during the day, and have a pretty full calendar now, but do have some evenings I could find an hour or so for something important like this.

Let me know.Forough

She can’t look at her bill and see what’s happening? She also excuses herself out of participating because of her job – will she have time to perform her duties on council? Probably – her duties would just be rubber stamping whatever Gruendl says. Same for Arim-Law – neither of them will discuss anything in depth, because they’re afraid to make any statement that is out of step with Gruendl and Mulhullond. They’re just a couple of fist-puppets.

Andrew Coolidge has lied right to me, he’s said things to me and then denied them later – I predict this guy will win, and then we’re going to be up Shit Creek without a paddle. He’s the cops’ boy, and along with Fillmer and Sorensen, he’s going to take us down the road to Perdition.

The only candidate I can say I have an ounce of respect for is Rodney Willis. He’s the only one with the balls to say he’ll favor a tax. You know they all will, but they’re lying right now to get elected. Still, I couldn’t vote for this guy, he didn’t have anything else, just honestly admitting he wanted to give the cops more money. Honesty isn’t enough Rodney, you have to have more brains than that.

I wrote in Joe Montes. Joe is the only one who would discuss anything pertinent. He’s also very qualified to work on employee relations – he’s an administrative law judge, the same kind of judge that sat on our CPUC hearing like an old hooker holding down a popular corner. But he seems to be more concerned with the public welfare – he’s the one that opined it is a conflict of interest for city councilors to vote on contracts that include a clause that the city collects union dues that are funneled into councilors’ campaigns. That was enough for me, the rest of them are a pile of shit – I wrote in Joe Montes.